Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5

a) Overview.
In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers. The IPCC’s remit was never to study climate objectively but to support the proposition that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver and that increasing emissions would produce warming with catastrophic consequences by the end of the 21st century. To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.

The entire vast UN and Government sponsored AGW behemoth with its endless labyrinthine conferences and gigantic schemes for UN global control over the World and National economies is a prime example of the disasters Eisenhower warned against in 1961 he said :

“In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. “

Politicians were willing to forgo the trouble of thinking for themselves and forming their own commonsense views on climate so long as their paid scientists gave them scary forecasts to use to regulate economic activity [via carbon taxes EPA mandates, etc]. This symbiotic relationship enabled politicians to reward themselves, their political friends and corporate sponsors while at the same time feeling righteous about “saving the world”.

Thus, with the enthusiastic assistance of the anti-capitalist movement and a supine or agenda driven MSM, the CAGW delusion took over much of the Western world as a quasi religion which will not easily fade away even though, as the AR5 science section shows, it has no connection to reality.

b) What’s wrong with the science?

The CAGW meme is built on the outputs of climate models. Many of the modelers and IPCC and Met Office scientific chiefs had a background in weather forecasting In spite of the inability of the weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, in an act of almost unbelievable hubris and stupidity, the modelers allowed themselves to believe, or at least proclaim, that they knew enough about the physical processes and climate driving factors involved to forecast global temperatures for decades and centuries ahead.Indeed, many establishment scientists appear to think that humanity can dial up a desired global temperature by keeping CO2 within some appropriate limit. What arrant nonsense!

In practice the modelers have known for some time that their models have no skill in forecasting and have indeed said so in the WG1 reports. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections. It concludes:

“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g. that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. This means that the successive SPM uncertainty estimates take no account of the structural uncertainties in the models and that almost the entire the range of model outputs may well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability. By the time of the AR5 report this is obviously the case. Here are two examples

Fig1, (IPCC Fig 1.4 2nd Draft)

Fig 2

The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)

“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations “

In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.

In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.

2. A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns.How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required .

It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.

When, about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW – CO2 based scare, some simple observations immediately presented themselves.

a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade and under clouds than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays – can this be a clue?
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some modest knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.

I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that solar activity and our orbital relations to the sun were the main climate drivers. More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine, the amount of cloud cover, the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday and at Midsummer . It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to postulated anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone’s considered thought are, at once , much nearer the truth and certainly would be much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC – Met Office models and the Global Warming impact studies and the emission control policies based on them. However it is necessary ,of course, to go beyond this level of understanding.

Over the last 25 years an immense amount of valuable instrumental and proxy temperature and possible climate driver data has been acquired and it turns out that climate forecasting on the basis of recognizing quasi cyclic – quasi-repetitive patterns in that data is fairly simple and straight forward. Interested parties should take the time necessary to become familiar with the general trends in both the instrumental and proxy time series of temperature, forcings and feedbacks.

Central to any forecast of future cooling is some knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures after all the infamous hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme.

and another showing clearly the correlation of the various climate minima over the last 1000 years to cosmic ray intensities -( note especially Fig 8 C ,D below ) is: Steinhilber et al – 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

s

Fig.3

The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.

The simplest working hypothesis for forecasting future climate is that the change in the temperature trend from warming to cooling in 2003 (Figs 6 and 7) marked both the change in the PDO phase and the peak in the 1000 year cycle.

NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.

Fig.8

The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature trends.The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present (Cycle 24) is obvious.

Fig.9

It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et alhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13 I have combined the PDO, Millennial cycle, and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.

Here are the conclusions of those posts.

1/22/13 (NH)

1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.

4/02/13 ( Global)

1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.

This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.

87 thoughts on “Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5”

29 Oct: Huffington Post: Jake Schmidt: Treasury Department to Stop Supporting U.S. Funding for Overseas Coal Projects
The Treasury Department has released revised “coal guidelines” on how they will vote on coal projects brought to them by the development banks. A number of controversial coal projects have been approved by these banks in recent history, including some of the world’s largest coal plants…
These guidelines mean that the U.S. will have to vote no on using U.S. funding for coal projects that lead to more climate change. With clean energy booming around the world these banks should be focused on how to build more wind, solar, and energy efficiency — not more coal projects.
In June President Obama directed the U.S. government to stop using public financing for new coal plants overseas that don’t capture their carbon…
These guidelines (LINK) — Guidance for U.S. Positions on MDBs Engaging with Developing Countries on Coal-Fired Power Generation — are a next step in implementing this commitment to stop using scarce U.S. funding to support coal projects that are driving climate change.
The Treasury Department represents the U.S. at the World Bank Group (WBG), Asian Development Bank (ADB), African Development Bank (AfDB), and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). So these revised guidelines would shape how the U.S. — the largest shareholder at these institutions — would vote on any coal project proposed by these development banks. Over the past 5 years these banks have invested almost $13 billion in coal projects that are driving climate change (see figure) so this is an important signal…
I’ll add more details tomorrow as I sort through the specifics, but here are quick reactions. The guidelines:…
•Don’t require, unfortunately, that these banks stop funding coal mine projects… etc etchttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-schmidt/treasury-department-to-st_b_4175872.html

* was the product of a scientific methodology,
* is falsifiable and,
* conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions.
A model which, like the IPCC climate models, “projects”
* was not the product of a scientific methodology,
* is not falsifiable and,
* conveys no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions.

Thus, while a model that “predicts” is suitable for making policy, a model that “projects” is unsuitable for this purpose. Currently, policy makers have no models that are suitable for making policy. Nonetheless, policy makers are making policy.

What the ICPP an governments have done is to drive everyone from the north to the south. Those that have legs, that is. Leaving for the Bahamas. Will chat with you later about how much cheaper it is to not have to heat your house.

So, the models do not forecast. ….Rather than “forecasting”, they “project.” Oh, I see! Well, they certainly “project” just as badly as they “forecast”. Given a choice between any one of them and the Old Farmer’s Almanac, one would have to buy the Almanac, if you were doing anything serious.

a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade and under clouds than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays – can this be a clue?
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
……………………….
It’s misleading (for a geologist) to mix changes such as day/night temperature changes with future temperature estimates. Some items a) to d) can be confirmed by temperature measurement, BUT some can not. Milankovitch cycles might be important, but I did not have it taught in my Geology lectures that they controlled earth temperatures. That assertion still has an element of speculation. The geometry of various bodies at various times in the past and future can be calculated or modelled, but it is not fully valid to infer that the effect of this on future temperatures can be predicted because that cannot be verified with adequate accuracy. (For example, a hypothetical concept might include a thermostat type of controller that compensates for geometry changes over time).
You are meeting the type of problem that causes people to construct models for an answer. Sure, in a first round of thought, cycles are likely candidates for influences on global temperatures. What you should be objecting to is the use of POOR models to overcome the problem. GOOD models have a valid place.
While I have no argument with most of your points, I’m suggesting that you have misplaced some emphasis. There should be little emphasis placed on an observed correlation between sunspot counts (or related solar indices) and global temperatures until a mechanistic cause is shown. To date, I suspect that it has not. That should not deter people looking for cause/effect because there is yet more ground to cover.

Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5) shows the peak spike of the MWP at about 1.8 degree C above their baseline, and the top 2 spikes close to WWII at about 1.6 degree C. Smoothed HadCRUT3 shows somewhat over .4 degree C of warming from the ~WWII peak.

You touched on CO2 – as you know nitrogen and oxygen make up fully 99% of the atmospheric gases with all the other trace gases making up the final 0.01%. How in any sane universe can a tiny trace gas like CO2, as the IPCC and other AGW believers claim, so completely control the world’s heat content? That is insane. Illogical. No where near possible – yet they claim such super powers for CO2. Why can’t we defeat this ridiculous concept? Their entire warming fantasy is based on CO2. Everything.

While in overall agreement with the article, notes include that figure 6 is revisionist data from the CRU of Climategate, such as in its claimed Northern Hemisphere temperature history, disproven by contrast to publications published prior to the political era (as in the subsequent link in this comment).

The “controversial” part for solar effect results from how solar activity history doesn’t match hockey-stick-style revisionist climate history and from how the CAGW movement works hard at trying to cloud the matter, correctly recognizing the greatest threat to them. They’d be comparatively happy if skeptics made a mistake of just primarily blaming multi-decadal ocean cycles. For example, the AMO index is actually a form of temperature index itself by definition, with one temperature index (it) not the ultimate causal factor and explanation for change in another temperature index (global average temperatures).

The AMO index is defined as North Atlantic temperature variation relative to global average temperatures, and northern latitudes tend to warm/cool more than the global average during times of global warming/cooling (MWP, Holocene Climate Optimum, Modern Warm Period, etc). With that, the AMO index usually tends to be higher during times of high solar-driven global warmth and lower during global cooling, but the AMO index (and the PDO) amounts to more of a consequence than a root cause, with some independent component but such limited.

In contrast, when solar activity varies in sync with terrestrial climate, the chain of causation can only go one way (since nothing in Earth’s atmosphere plausibly significantly affects the gigantic distant sun).

… with tropospheric ionization observed to change by a relatively large amount over even an ordinary solar cycle (5%), extra cloud condensation nuclei forming under extra ionizing radiation (tested in the CLOUD experiment for emulating the atmosphere but the effect a bit like a common tool around since 1912 A.D., a Cloud Chamber: http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~adf4/cloud.html ), and low cloud cover changing by 2% in sync with that during even an ordinary solar cycle, as in illustrations in the first link.

Now all we have to do is find some investigative journalists to start the truth ball rolling. Ethical politicians will read about the contortions the IPCC scientists have gone through to produce their robust projections and command some honest judges to duly process the team and their cause.

Oh, and the UN, NGOs, formerly respected academies and societies, government departments, windmill farmers, PV fiefdoms, carbon traders, chief scientists, activist organizations, ecoloonies and uncle Tom Cobbley and all will soon see the error of their ways, awake to the murder and damage being committed worldwide in the name of their beloved environment, fold their tents and bother the rationalists no more.

There is no /sarc tag. There is despair in my soul.

There are a number of oxymorons in my first paragraph and millions of morons in my second.

The Treasury decision infuriates me. It is one thing for we, the rich and comfortable, to delude ourselves and pursue asinine energy policies. But, for us to deny developing economies the access to the cheap energy that they desperately need, is morally vacant.

“g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.”

Exactly the reason I stopped believing one word of the warnings about Global Warming.
Up to that point I thought that CO2 was about 15% of the air, based on the alarming news!
When I started to look things up for myself, I turned into a skeptic and will be one until proven wrong.

The key to the fact that the models don’t work is dead simple, they ignore surface tension. If you attempt to put heat into water through the surface you will find that the heat is rejected. Radiation penetrates surface tension, physical heat does not. There is no such thing as climate “sensitivity” to co2 because of this simple fact. I would recommend that everybody try getting heat through the surface of water using a heat gun, the complete rejection of the heat tells the story. In short radiation yes, heat no.

“In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.”

I was at a meeting at the Met Office last week and can assure you that they do not believe their models are ‘worse than useless’ and the imminent demise of the CAGW meme seems highly unlikely.
tonyb

“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations “

In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.

The IPCC said there is “no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies” long before AR5 but hid it by omitting the statement from its Summaries.

In 2001 the IPCC Reported in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) Chapter 2 from WG3;

no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios.

In plain English this means the IPCC has no idea of what if any effect on climate will result from adopting the economically destructive climate and energy policies the IPCC suggests.

And, to this day, it remains true that “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.

Terry Oldberg says:
“The author asserts that the models have no skill in forecasting. Actually, the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they ‘project’.”

Your nit-picking distinction is completely irrelevant. The actual temperatures are now officially outside of of nearly all of the models’ “projections”. The only “what if projection” left is “What if all of the models turn out to be complete failures at projecting future temperature trends?” That’s where we are today.

As for Venus, it’s not why does it have the thick atmosphere but why does it *still have* the thick atmosphere when Mars has lost most of its and Venus is so close to Earth in mass it should have at least had its atmosphere blown away to Earth’s level by solar wind.

The conjectural collision with a Mars sized protoplanet likely had much to do with the Earth gaining Luna and a more vigorous iron core generating a stronger geomagnetic field. This seems to have played a role in the massive precipitation of the water vapor in the atmosphere to form the oceans. The precipitation of the water vapor aided the removal of massive quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water vapor as it precipitated into the oceans. The water cycle then helped to recycle even more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make the atmosphere a small percentage of its former mass and former atmospheric pressure. The carbon dioxide was further deposited into the Earth’s lithosphere. By contrast, Venus retained its massive atmosphere of carbon dioxide when it did not experience a comparable chain of events. Mars retained much of its carbon dioxide for similar reasons as Venus, but in a very different set of circumstances.

All of this suggest astronomers searching exoplanets for signs of carbon-based lifeforms should look for planets who have lost their carbon dioxide, ammonia, and methane atmospheres in favor of Nitrogen and oxygen atmospheres.

I believe the adherence to a quasi religion is right on the nail as despite observations, critical evidence and indeed common sense the ‘warmists’ cling to a seemingly ‘devine’ belief that somehow mankind is responsible for dooming the planet! They appear to want to believe this at any cost and the more the IPCC cling to their projections the more their belief is compounded!!

NeilC says:
October 30, 2013 at 3:06 am
I think “Common Sense” is a lot more common than you suggest, but it does not fit the Agenda of those that wish to control and those that wish to be part of the controlling structure/process.
Some also have their common sense destroyed by crusades to save mother earth, nature, us from ourselves etc.
I am sure you can think of a few more.

This article reminds me of an excellent scientific lecture proceeding on deck 5, while the boat is sinking.
Despite the evidence amassed here that AGW is not a meaningful problem, the EPA will soon be implementing rules requiring both new and existing coal plants be stopped or discontinued. After that comes the exporting of coal. Then automobiles. Then….
My frustration is that notwithstanding all of the credible “skeptical” science, the political/regulatory train is chugging down the tracks and we can’t seem to slow it. Anyone have a bright idea on how to effectively harness the science to stop this insanity??!!

Dr. Page, you write ” To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.”

The Royal Society held a 2 day “love in”: following the publication of the AR5, at which only out and out warmists were invited to speak. It is obvious that all the learned societies who support the hoax of CAGW have absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing their collective minds in the immediate future. It is all very well publishing this sort of criticism on a blog, but it does not actually DO anything. What is required is some significant scientist, who has some gonads, to stand up and be counted. Or whatever, which I cannot think of. Maybe Princeton University could publish a statement against CAGW

So far as I can see, the chances of any of this happening are the same as a snowball’s chances of surviving in Hell.

The effects of ionization changes are rather large over a solar cycle. Look up the history of Maximum Useable Frequency (MUF) – it details how radio waves bounce off the ionosphere and changes daily with an overall pattern corresponding to sunspot cycles.

When solar activity is very high MUF can run to 6 meters (wavelength) for relatively long periods with occasional peaks as high as 2 meters or less.

Gregg Eshelman writes – It’s simple but the numbers are very large. Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) at the top of the atmosphere averages 1.361 Kilowatts per square meter.
………………..
Greg, It’s not simple, I’ve been through that type of calculation many times over the years and have written on many blogs about the inaccuracies inherent in a balance where two large numbers (incoming-outgoing at TOA) are subtracted to get that balance, especially when people play fast & loose with error terms.
If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m concerned that there might be as yet no demonstrated mechanism linking sunspot counts to measured global temperatures. IIRC, I first had a look at this correlation around 1990 when I pulled figures from Scientific American and used cross-variogram analysis from geostatistics. I got the best correlation with California’s annual tomato yield. The message here is, correlation is not causation. Again.

A loose interpretation of the terms is that a prediction is the “most likely” future situation. If you attach some probabilistic numbers, it becomes a forecast. A projection is a conditional prediction given a “scenario” of conditions.

However, if all of their projections start going off the rails early, which of them is chosen to be the prediction becomes a moot point.

“”9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.””

Doc, this is climate alarmism.
I’ve become leery of ALL doomsayers,
Color me jaded, I guess.

Now that it has been clearly shown that during the last 16.8 years rising levels of CO2 do not raise global temperatures, there remain three major climate forcing factors that may shape our climate for the next 2-3 decades, namely a much less active sun, a changing global ocean SST cycle which is headed for cooler ocean surface temperatures and a cooling Arctic due to possibly changing deep ocean currents. Volcanic eruptions can also alter global weather but their effects only last for a few years and their timing is unpredictable. However whether you accept that the sun or the oceans or both as the prime climate drivers, both factors seem to point to a possible 30-35 year cooler period bottoming by 2035/2045 rather than unprecedented warming.

. We are currently and approximately where the planet was back about 1807 and again in 1885, just 2 years past the solar maximums of 1805 and 1883 of the first low solar cycles # 5 and again # 12. These were the first solar cycle in series of three low solar cycles.. The ocean SST and AMO were in the cooling mode heading for troughs by1820 and 1910. The Arctic was cooling as indicated by Greenland oxygen isotope records. What followed according to CET records was a decade or two of cooler winter climate, starting at the end of the first and during the second and third solar cycles.

Below is detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global cooling and warming over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040 like they did 1910 and 1975. A global warming peak like 2005 is not predicted for 60- 70 years or until 2065/2075. So IPCC predictions of continued temperature rise of 1.8 to 4 C by 2100 are not only wrong but very unlikely regardless what their models say. If the oceans are cooling so will the global atmosphere.

I tend to agree with your forecast in terms of a general cooling trend for the next 20-30 years . There is nothing on the horizon that can raise global temperatures as per the latest IPCC forecast

Now that it has been clearly shown that during the last 16.8 years rising levels of CO2 do not raise global temperatures, there remain three major climate forcing factors that may shape our climate for the next 2-3 decades, namely a much less active sun, a changing global ocean SST cycle which is headed for cooler ocean surface temperatures and a cooling Arctic due to possibly changing deep ocean currents. Volcanic eruptions can also alter global weather but their effects only last for a few years and their timing is unpredictable. However whether you accept that the sun or the oceans or both as the prime climate drivers, both factors seem to point to a possible 30-35 year cooler period bottoming by 2035/2045 rather than unprecedented warming.

. We are currently and approximately where the planet was back about 1807 and again in 1885, just 2 years past the solar maximums of 1805 and 1883 of the first low solar cycles # 5 and again # 12. These were the first solar cycle in series of three low solar cycles.. The ocean SST and AMO were in the cooling mode heading for troughs by1820 and 1910. The Arctic was cooling as indicated by Greenland oxygen isotope records. What followed according to CET records was a decade or two of cooler winter climate, starting at the end of the first and during the second and third solar cycles.

Below is detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global cooling and warming over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040 like they did 1910 and 1975. A global warming peak like 2005 is not predicted for 60- 70 years or until 2065/2075. So IPCC predictions of continued temperature rise of 1.8 to 4 C by 2100 are not only wrong but very unlikely regardless what their models say. If the oceans are cooling so will the global atmosphere.

I tend to agree with your forecast in terms of a general cooling trend for the next 20-30 years . There is nothing on the horizon that can raise global temperatures as per the latest IPCC forecast

Dr. Page, thank you! One small question, for clarity: Conclusion 1 states “…Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.”
.
Is it possible to be both + and – 0.25 degrees colder? Or do you mean “up to 0.25 degrees colder” instead?
.
Thank you sir.

“Politicians were willing to forgo the trouble of thinking for themselves and forming their own commonsense views on climate so long as their paid scientists gave them scary forecasts to use to regulate economic activity [via carbon taxes EPA mandates, etc]. This symbiotic relationship enabled politicians to reward themselves, their political friends and corporate sponsors while at the same time feeling righteous about “saving the world”.

Thus, with the enthusiastic assistance of the anti-capitalist movement and a supine or agenda driven MSM, the CAGW delusion took over much of the Western world as a quasi religion which will not easily fade away even though, as the AR5 science section shows, it has no connection to reality.”

You ask why I think that viewing Dr Page’s selected 2003-2013 trend for SST in the context of the entire 150+ year series should raise any doubts.

Mainly, it is immediately clear on viewing the entire series that the selected period is very short when compared with the natural variability of the data. Too short, in fact, to reliably detect any change in trend. There have been several other 10-year periods with negative slopes, that have occurred within periods when the overall trend is clearly rising.

In context, including both longer history and more recent data, it is clear that alternative interpretations of the underlying trend during 2003-2013 are entirely plausible. This, for example:

It is also puzzling why, in a chart created using an online resource with current data available, Dr Page chose to omit any data since the start of 2013. The trend since 2003 is still negative but rather less so. I can only assume the chart was created some time ago.

Projection: If I get into a car accident on the way home, I could be late for dinner.
Prediction: Working late will make me late for dinner.
Forecast: Because I am working late tonight, I should be late for dinner.

A good statistician should be able to calculate confidence limits on your multiple wave length cyclical model, starting with the 1000 year wave length. What is the probibility that 1000 is the actual value?. What is the most likely wave length of that cycle? Curve fitting with normal statistical techniques can be missleading when time is not a fixed value.

Here’s the funny part – I work in the oil and gas business, and oil producers worldwide are laughing and slapping each on the back over this one. Why? Coal is oil’s #1 competitor! Poor countries can’t afford to put in high-cost, low output systems like windmills or other nonsense – when they need energy, and they have to substitute for coal, they will have to burn oil and gas – no other realistic substitutes. Consequently, in spite of supplies threatening to rise (the so-called “Peak Oil” theory has now collapsed in ignominy), Oil demand (ie, PRICE) is now guaranteed to rise for the forseeable future – THANK YOU, Uncle Sam!!!

One other thing – mining, especially if its near the surface, is not nearly as demanding technically as oil and gas production is, and coal reserves are much more plentiful, also. This is why coal is the #1 choice for 3rd world economies trying to develop energy resources and pull themselves out of poverty.

Nope! No economic salvation for you! You’re going to pay whatever we tell you for your energy usage now on, and NONE of that money will go back into your local economies – and the US Government is going to use its muscle to guarantee you poor countries stay dependent on us forever!!!

“”9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.””

Doc, this is climate alarmism.
I’ve become leery of ALL doomsayers,
Color me jaded, I guess.

No, it isn’t alarmism. Alarmism preys on people’s fear and ignorance to push an idea, usually with a hidden agenda. Another LIA type of climate is certainly possible by mid-century, and we know that cooling is by far, much more dangerous to man than warming.
In any case, we already know that the best bulwark we have against a cooling, regardless of how severe, is cheap, readily-available energy. By happy coincidence, that also happens to be our best defense against poverty and a whole host of societal ills.

The toing and froing that we see about AGW shall be moot over the next decade, as old Sol and Gaia tell us which way is up. The in crowd will no doubt be some what embarrassed, however this will not prevent those higher up the food chain from inventing a new hobgoblin ,designed to make us feel guilty for being free and well off enough to not live in a bark hut.

AGW will die but the fight to rid ourselves of over riding political correctness and new hobgoblins will be an on going fight until a real enemy appears.

Nice summary. By 2650 we should have reached and passed the “Peak Oil” and “Peak Gas” production points (even for an optimist) and it should be more difficult to produce CO2 at the same levels even if we wanted to (it definitely would be more expensive based on supply/demand). Lots of dirty coal out there and shale oil so we should have supply, but I would guess it is much less than demand and that most of the fracking opportunity would have been expended. At any point, our exposure to fossil fuel CO2 generation has it’s limits, and so ideally it peaks while we’re in a cold period and declines as we’re coming out of it.

Well written common sense, Dr. Page. From what I have observed regarding the power of the CAGW mindset though, until continental glaciers like the Laurentide start returning, nothing will change the mind of the true believing CAGWer.

ferd berple says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Terry Oldberg says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they “project.”
=========
It takes real skill for the climate models to be so consistently wrong.

When one gets the likes of Dame (it’s a Gong that goes with her job, she didn’t earn the honour on merit) Julia Slingo comes out with things such as “the calculations made for 2012 long range weather forecast were not wrong, because they were probabilistic!”, when dishing out excuses for why the drought of February/March that was supposed to go on until December, was a wash out!!!! We won’t get an apology from any of them, not even when hell freezes over!

From a google search of definitions
Predict: to say or estimate (a specified thing) will happen in the future or be a consequence of something. (synonymous with forecast)
Forecast: to predict or estimate a future event or trend
Project: estimate or forecast something based on present trends
I’m sure subtle and technical differences can be used for each of these, but the common usage of these words make them very close in meaning.
I like Dr. Page’s prediction/forecast/projection of future climate because it assumes longstanding cycles will likely not be too perturbed. Now, if I could just predict/forecast/project the stock market and lottery numbers.

@ fhhaynie nigelharris the 1000 year cycle is not arrived at by curve fitting but simply from inspection of the data itself see Figs 3 and 4. I would not expect any natural cycle to repeat exactly in amplitude or period because other things in the climate system are never equal. In natural systems in reality everything only happens once .Patterns and resonances between variables come and go as best illustrated in wave analyses of data sets. Some patterns are very stable eg Milankovitch cycles have been around in more or less their present form for hundreds of millions of years – but their effect on climate would vary substantially as the position of the continents changed with time. Obviously events closer in time and particularly the last 2 to 3000 years are more meaningful in predicting the future , The chief uncertainty in this forecast is just where are we relative to the 1000 year peak. Fig 7 is compatible with the working hypothesis that we may be just past the peak ,as is the state of the sun. We’ll see.If cooling accelerates by 2018 – 20 I would say we are definitely on the downslope.

Dr. Page,
You have eye-balled a curve fit of a primary 1000 year cycle and have observed several shorter repeating cycles and are making predictions based on those observations. You are eye-ball estimating confidence limits on the 1000 years at about plus or minus nine years. These very well may be good values. I am suggesting that you use statistical curve fitting techniques that will let you be able to calculate confidence limits on your predictions. Consult a good statistician on how to do it. The IPPC certainly has not in making their “projections”.

Indeed, while my example was focused on the troposphere (with the 5% figure from page 1 of http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf although that link wasn’t given in my prior comment), what you mention would be an illustration of another consequence of solar variation, on a higher layer of the atmosphere.

You’re mistaken about Venus being in the habitable zonehttp://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/cjohnson/climate.html
“Early in its history Venus may have had water, but it is too close to the Sun to retain it. When water molecules rise high in an atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation split the water molecules into its component gases, oxygen and hydrogen, and the lighter hydrogen molecules escape into space.”

So venus may have been potentially habitable when the sun was only about 70% as luminous as it is now, but the runaway greenhouse effect quickly took hold. You’re right about Mars- if it was as massive as earth, its core wouldn’t have cooled off yet, and our system could potentially have had TWO planets with life.

Our sun started out about 70% as luminous as it is now, and is continually warming up. In about 1 billion years or so, Earth will also have a runaway greenhouse, our oceans will gradually evaporate, we’ll lose our Hydrogen, and wind up as the twin sister of Venus.

Your reply to my request for clarification provides one direct answer and then raises a new issue.

Your direct answer says to me

You ask why I think that viewing Dr Page’s selected 2003-2013 trend for SST in the context of the entire 150+ year series should raise any doubts.

Mainly, it is immediately clear on viewing the entire series that the selected period is very short when compared with the natural variability of the data. Too short, in fact, to reliably detect any change in trend. There have been several other 10-year periods with negative slopes, that have occurred within periods when the overall trend is clearly rising.

I would agree with you were you to say there is doubt about a recent change because the recent linear trend still fits the non-linear trend of Akasofu. But that is not your claim: you are saying it fits the long-term linear trend which it does not.

The present lack of discernible linear trend which differs from zero at 95% confidence is at least 17 years according to all data sets (it is 22 years according to RSS). Lack of a discernible linear trend for such a long period is unprecedented in the record. Indeed, your talk of “other 10-year periods” emphasises this difference.

You then say

In context, including both longer history and more recent data, it is clear that alternative interpretations of the underlying trend during 2003-2013 are entirely plausible. This, for example:

It is also puzzling why, in a chart created using an online resource with current data available, Dr Page chose to omit any data since the start of 2013. The trend since 2003 is still negative but rather less so. I can only assume the chart was created some time ago.

Firstly, it is you who has taken the above Figure 7 out of context. The above essay says

The simplest working hypothesis for forecasting future climate is that the change in the temperature trend from warming to cooling in 2003 (Figs 6 and 7) marked both the change in the PDO phase and the peak in the 1000 year cycle.

Figure 6 shows the HadSST3 data since 1840 and provides a link to it then immediately follows that with Figure 7 which shows the recent part of it.

And Figure 7 does NOT “omit any data since the start of 2013”, but if it did then that would not make a significant difference.

Of course, as you say, it is possible to make different interpretations of the data: that is true of any data. (Indeed, I cavil at Norman Page’s assertion that we have probably reached “the peak in the 1000 year cycle”: although he only presents that as part of the “simplest working hypothesis” I would not care to bet on it being true.) However, the alternative which you suggest makes no sense.

@Dr. Page said ” To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.”

The Royal Society held a 2 day “love in”: following the publication of the AR5, at which only out and out warmists were invited to speak. It is obvious that all the learned societies who support the hoax of CAGW have absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing their collective minds in the immediate future. It is all very well publishing this sort of criticism on a blog, but it does not actually DO anything. What is required is some significant scientist, who has some gonads, to stand up and be counted. Or whatever, which I cannot think of. Maybe Princeton University could publish a statement against CAGW

– – – – – – – – –

Jim Cripwell & Norman Page,

First, thank you, Norman Page, for teeing up this important topic and sustaining the dialog on what the science faults are that need scientific self-correction.

What will cause any of those kinds of scientific organizations to stand up to correct the erroneous science supported by the IPCC? I suggest it requires a cultural inducement.

How would cultural changes occur in any of those scientific organizations? I think it can only be by individual scientists stepping up to lead the dialog in the scientific organizations on the fundamental cause of the IPCC’s scientific errors.

Consider, by efforts of such individuals, that it would take just one major scientific organization to initiate its own (unilateral) audit of the IPCC’s AR5 modeling assessment processes and of its non-rigorous / irrational dependence on CO2 driven models.

Blogs like WUWT do significantly contribute to enabling the individuals necessary to induce cultural change in scientific organizations. Please keep it up, all you skeptical blogs.

In my opinion, this line from the article best sums up the state of climate “science” over the past couple of decades: “To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.”

But we all know it’s really about Big Oil and/or the Koch Brothers, right?

1: Good timing, but the faster drops will be regional, like from negative AO/NAO conditions, and that will shunt more warmer sea water towards the Arctic, and also promote El Nino conditions, so the global average surface temperature would rise temporarily.
2: 2021-22 will be close to the next solar cycle minimum and the largest drop in the solar wind speed often occurs from about a year after solar minimum: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
but that would again give negative AO/NAO conditions and regional (temperate zone) short term cooling.

My sincerest thanks to you, Dr. Page. Your efforts are precisely the reason I read WUWT. Our society is engaged in a huge conflict and for a sideliner like myself it is important to have this information. Somewhere in the future (a prediction) this carbon dioxide lunacy will end. The duration of the wailing and gnashing of teeth we will have to experience is uncertain but your common sense helps put us on the path to the end. I believe, like many here on WUWT, we are far from the end game. There has been progress. I was recently in Craig, Colorado and heard local advertisements for the formation of a delegation to go to Denver to represent coal interests in the EPA hearings being held there today. This was the first time I have heard unequivocal and strident remarks against the carbon dioxide mantra. Most resistance in the past has been barely forceful enough to receive any attention from the media. With efforts like yours, perhaps that will change.
Again, Thanks.

Thank you for your reply. I agree a linear trend is overly simplistic. Unfortunately that’s the only kind of trend that WoodForTrees can plot. It is also what Dr Page used to demonstrate that temperatures declined between 2003 and 2013. I was simply trying to point out that if you look at the data from 1970 to 2013, the last 10 years (even though they have a small negative trend) don’t appear to be hugely inconsistent with an underlying continued rise in temperature, given the degree of short term variability in this series.

And, as a matter of fact, Dr Pages Figure 7 DOES omit the most recent few months of data. WoodForTrees interprets “To 2013” as meaning to 2013.0 – in other words as far as January 2013 and no further. On this plot, the missing data are in red:

At present consumption rates, peak coal will be in 2070 and peak energy (of all types) will be about 2050, unless there is a big change of heart about Thorium. There isn’t much uranium to find – peak uranium in about 2035. It is a good thing there will still be hydro and tidal power – a small stream equals 100 solar panels.

Tom in Florida says:
“Projection: If I get into a car accident on the way home, I could be late for dinner.
Prediction: Working late will make me late for dinner.
Forecast: Because I am working late tonight, I should be late for dinner.”

Let’s apply this to the Climate Scientists then.
Projection: If CO2 is the control knob for Earths temperature, there could be catastrophic warming.
Prediction: Since CO2 is the control know for Earth Temperature, catastrophic warming will occur with increasing CO2.
Forecast: Because CO2 is the control knob for earth’s temperature, we should expect catastrophic warming to be occurring.

Doesn’t look to me like the Climate Scientists are making a projection based on your logic. Looks more like they are making a Prediction trying to claim they are only making a projection. Once the rate of CO2 increase or decrease is known, then the projection instantly becomes a prediction. Their predictions (models) are NOT following CO2 concentrations thus the models are WRONG.

To explain to the naive warmista just what the anthropogenic 5% of 400ppm CO2 amounts to, I use the analogy of walking over a bridge 1km long. We would seem justified in making the canine metaphor more precise by saying “..that such a flea sitting on the tail of the dog should wag the dog”.

A “projection” differs from a “prediction” in the respect that the latter corresponds to an event but not the former. Events do not underlie the IPCC climate models; it follows that they do not make predictions (aka forecasts).

A feature of a model that makes predictions is that observed independent events of various kinds can be counted. In statistical jargon, such a count is called a “frequency.”

The ratio of two frequencies is called the “relative frequency.” A relative frequency is the empirical counterpart of a probability. In testing a predictive model, observed relative frequency values are compared to predicted probability values. If there is not a match, the model is falsified. Otherwise, the model is “validated.”

As events do not underlie the IPCC climate models, there are no frequencies, relative frequencies or probabilities for these models. Thus, they can neither be falsified nor validated. However, they can be “evaluated.” In an IPCC-style “evaluation” of a model one or more projections of this model are compared to a selected global temperature time series. While the evaluation of a model provides for a visualization of the magnitude of this model’s errors, it neither falsifies nor validates this model. That they neither can be falsified nor validated places the IPCC climate models outside the rule of logic.

Terry I would have to disagree here. The climate models are basically “IF”, “THEN” statements. IF this occurs, then THIS will happen. Now that we know what DID occur, and the “THIS” did not occur, the model is falsified.

Tom in Florida says:
“Projection: If I get into a car accident on the way home, I could be late for dinner.
Prediction: Working late will make me late for dinner.
Forecast: Because I am working late tonight, I should be late for dinner.”

Let’s apply this to the Climate Scientists then.
Projection: If CO2 is the control knob for Earths temperature, there could be catastrophic warming.
Prediction: Since CO2 is the control know for Earth Temperature, catastrophic warming will occur with increasing CO2.
Forecast: Because CO2 is the control knob for earth’s temperature, we should expect catastrophic warming to be occurring.

—————————————————————————————-
What you say the Climate Scientists say are not based on facts in evidence. The example of Projection is correct due to the words “if” and “there could”. However, the Prediction and Forecast are wrong because they include the assumption that CO2 is the control knob for Earth’s temperature, which is not a proven fact. If it were true that CO2 is the control knob for Earth’s temperature then both of those examples would be correct.

And whether or not CO2 is the major temperature control knob is the real argument.

“A model which, like the IPCC climate models, “projects”
* is not the product of a scientific methodology,…and
* conveys no information…”
and
“Currently, policy makers have no models that are suitable for making policy.”

Thank you Captain Obvious! That’s what we’ve been saying here for years!

PS: “Science must be falsifiable” – Karl Popper.
Your claim that “a model which…“projects” is not falsifiable simply proves that climate models are not science. Thanks for the clarification.

Thank for standing up and offering this post on WUWT. As you have done many others will do so. It takes courage to stand your ground. The army of “ones” are now stepping forward and hopefully the scam will soon be over. Courage is a character trait. Few actually have it.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. By your remarks, you’ve captured some of the phenomenon under discussion but not all of it. Let me explain.

A “predictive inference” is a set of IF-THEN statements such as:

IF
cloudy
THEN
rain in the next 24 hours
IF
NOT-cloudy
THEN
no rain in the next 24 hours.

A “prediction” is a THEN statement such as
“rain in the next 24 hours”
that is predicated upon the accuracy of an IF statement such as “cloudy”

Corresponding to a prediction is an event. An “event” is described by a condition such as “cloudy” and and outcome such as “rain in the next 24 hours.”

The count of events in which the condition was “cloudy” and the outcome was “rain in the next 24 hours” is an example of a “frequency.” The count of events in which the condition was “cloudy” is another example of a “frequency.” The ratio of the first of the two frequencies to the second of them is an example of a “relative frequency.” In particular, it is the relative frequency of “rain in the next 24 hours” given “cloudy.”

If the above referenced relative frequency is less than 1, the associated model is falsified by the evidence. However, if no events underlie the associated model, there is no such thing as a relative frequency; hence, the associated model is insusceptible to being falsified by the evidence. For the IPCC climate models, there are no underlying events hence is no such thing as a relative frequency. Thus the possibility of falsifying these models is absent and the methodology of the research is not “scientific.” Also, as “probability” is the theoretical counterpart of “relative frequency” and as “information” is defined in terms of probabilities, there is no such thing as “information” for policy makers who rely upon the IPCC climate models in making policy. On the other hand, possession of information by policy makers is a requirement for successful regulation of the climate.

IF
cloudy
THEN
rain in the next 24 hours
IF
NOT-cloudy
THEN
no rain in the next 24 hours.

A “prediction” is a THEN statement such as
“rain in the next 24 hours”
that is predicated upon the accuracy of an IF statement such as “cloudy”

. . .”

– – – – – – – –

Terry Oldberg,

Your above use of that example of a syllogism shows you have been reading Thompson Jaynes’ book ‘Probability Theory: The Logic of Science’. I respect that.

I have been reading it also in the past 2 weeks. It is broadening the underpinnings of my statistical fundamentals. Soon I will also start rgbatduke’s draft partially completed book project ‘Axioms’. So much to do and so little time.

As to the thrust of your treatment of the IPCC assessed GCMs, I appreciate your recent expansion in this thread of your views. Food for the intellect to taste.

Also worthy of inclusion on your reading list is “Multivariate Statistical Modeling” by Ronald Christensen (ISBN 0-938-87614-7, 1983). In the book, Christensen solves the most important of previously unsolved philosophical problems: the so-called “problem of induction.” The problem is of how to justify induction, the process by which scientific theories are created. In solving this problem, Christensen employs the principle of entropy maximization, among whose discoverers was Jaynes.

Also worthy of inclusion on your reading list is “Multivariate Statistical Modeling” by Ronald Christensen (ISBN 0-938-87614-7, 1983). In the book, Christensen solves the most important of previously unsolved philosophical problems: the so-called “problem of induction.” The problem is of how to justify induction, the process by which scientific theories are created. In solving this problem, Christensen employs the principle of entropy maximization, among whose discoverers was Jaynes.

– – – – – – – –

Terry Oldberg,

Appreciate your comment.

I’ll add it to my list, after my current reading list. My statistical reading plate is full for this coming winter.